Posted on 01/25/2008 12:59:01 PM PST by CautiouslyHopeful
With Fred Thompson out of the presidential race, who's a self-respecting conservative to go for? Could it be, maybe, perhaps, a certain Republican-libertarian from Texas?
That's one question perplexing California state Sen. Tom McClintock, possibly the second-most-famous California Republican currently in office after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
McClintock created a stir two months when he endorsed Thompson’s presidential candidacy. Having run for governor, lieutenant governor and state controller, McClintock has shown that while he has not won a statewide contest, he can win GOP primaries, which conservatives tend to dominate. So heading into the Feb. 5 primary, McClintock’s endorsement is seen as important in California.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
Ron has a point.
If Paul is your first choice, then please be true to yourself and vote your conscience. Don't fall for the same trap they always put us in, of having to "hold your nose" to vote. Before you get on board with Mitt, take a look at these videos:
Not a Good Thing
Romney's Real Record
Mitt Romney Flip Flops on Gun Control
Mitt Romney: Lifelong hunter?
Mitt Flip Flops on Abortion
Romney Abortion Fairytale
Mitt Romney Has A Truth Problem
Our country is in big trouble, if we continue on the same path we have been on. Let's not make the same mistake again by electing a phony conservative. We don't need more establishment/elitist globalists, we need to get back to the basics. Besides, any of the other candidates will not win in the general. There is no way the Paul supporters, independents, libertarians and true conservatives will get behind a status-quo RINO. SO if Mitt or McCain get the nomination, say hello to president Hildabeast.
This just proves Republicans were right to back Arnold over McClintock. What a nut.
I would like to address the Cut and run issue
RP has said, if elected, he would ask the generals to work out a safe and orderly plan that brings our people home without unduly endangering the new Iraq government.
He voted for taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan.
We have 700 military installations in 120 countries--that and foreign aid costs us nearly a trillion $ per annum. The FedGov borrows nearly 10 billion $ per DAY.
Middle east politics is irrational. Recall Reagan and the Beirut massacre--Reagan had the common sense and honesty to get our boys out. Was Reagan a 'cut & run' Pres, I don't think so.
Ron Paul has gotten more donations from active service military than any other candidate--does this tell us something? I hear alot about 'support the troops'--well, they seem to support Ron Paul.
Keep on kissing Arnold’s tusche, loser.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? A brokered convention will be guaranteed to give us a globalist, gun-grabbing tyrant. McCain is a likely outcome of such an occurrance. Say hello to Madame President!
Quit trying to hope lipstick will stick to one of the four pigs. They ain't ever gonna fly.
Romney and Rudy are two northeast liberals beholden to the lavender mafia. I have been working to get those two clowns gone for going on two decades. Nobody who has watched them all this time is buying their conservative road to Damascus conversion.
McCain of shamnesty and McCain/Feingold is loopy.
The Huckster is less known but the furniture thing is enough to move him into the pile with the other four.
We may not be able to prevent a lib, but it is best to have the lib say democrat if we have to have one.
“Hmmm, yes I see your point now. Indeed since Ron Paul thinks World Wars 1 and 2 and the Civil War were also foreign policy “blunders”, then maybe losing a war is just no big deal huh?
In Paul’s bizaare view of the world:
1. The COnfederate bombardment of Fort Sumter;
2. The German sinking of allied shipping in 1916-17;
3. The japanese Bombing of Pearl Harbor;
Should have just gone unanswered.”
Actually, I think numbers 1 and 2 should have gone unanswered for the following reasons.:
1. Union troops should’ve gotten out of Ft. Sumter once South Carolina seceded. They didn’t, and wouldn’t leave, so what was the Confederacy supposed to do? There’s no doubt in my mind that the South was in the right in that war. So, I would say that the War Between the States was unnecessary and had both positive (a stronger America) and negative (a reduction in freedoms) results.
2. I also think the Germans had every right to attack Allied shipping in WWI. After all, we went after Japanese shipping pretty vigorously during WWII. Also, the Germans went out of their way to try avoid tragedies like the Lusitania (i.e. openly warning Americans that they considered all Allied ships legitimate targets). To expect a country fighting a two front war against strong enemies to pull punches is unrealistic.
I honestly think the world may have been better off had the Central Powers won WWI (course, we’ll never know)—which I feel they likely would have had we not gotten involved in a war which really didn’t concern us.
As for WWII, I don’t think that would’ve happened were it not for WWI and the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
I see nothing bizarre about views numbers 1 and 2; nothing at all.
I don’t want to get off topic though. I’m surprised that McClintock is (somewhat) supporting Paul, but I think all it really shows is how crummy our remaining options are. I’d probably vote third party before Paul, but I’m pretty bummed about Thompson’s dropping out.
Was Nixon a 'cut & run' President, I can't recall anyone saying that about him.
Republicans used to deride the Democrats, calling them 'Wilsonians' for their advocation of foreign adventurism.
MacArthur famously warned not to get involved in any land war in Asia.
We won, Saddam is gone, there is a friendly government in Baghdad. Declare victory and come home. Don't fall for the 'coming home is defeat' crap. Our military kicked the hell out of Iraq's military--but that was years ago now.
We didn't declare war on Iraq, we are implementing U.N. resolutions. Our military shouldn't die for U.N. resolutions.
How about 'leaving an Iraq that would become a place for OBL and crew to launch attacks on us?'
Well, wouldn't happen in the Kurdish north. The Sunni areas are dominated by Saudi Arabia and the Saudis don't allow OBL to organize anywhere in their sphere of influence. The Shia areas are already dominated by Iran--Iran has been our enemy for a long time so nothing new there.
Ergo, leaving Iraq will not allow OBL & crew a safe haven.
Ron Paul does not think Pearl Harbor should have gone unanswered. He has been asked that exact question many, many times and his answer has always been, 'hell, no'.
I have not him heard say anything about WWI that I recall--where do you get your information?
The civil war was not foreign policy and was a heck of a long time ago now although the debate never seems to end.
The one and only candidate who would actually try to cut whole departments from the FedGov. Can anyone even begin to image McCain or Guliani trying to cut anything? I'd be surprised if Mitt did, either. Huckabee maybe, but he has other goals.
Nominate Mr. Paul--in a debate with Hillary, the whole nation would plainly see the empress-in-waiting has no clothes on.
The FedGov has learned a nifty trick, it can now spend more and tax less at the same time! It is called deficit spending, aka, borrowing massive amounts of money on the open market. This heavy borrowing distorts the credit market and pushed up interest rates.
This 'decoupling' of spending and taxation is addicting for government but quite obviously can't go on forever.
These people are being paid interest but we're borrowing the money to do it.
Barrowing to pay interest on previous debt is not recommended by anyone I know.
If there is a crises of faith in the dollar, these folks may want more than just interest, they may want their principle back, too. This would cause financial collapse and turn us into a third-rate nation overnight.
Who of all the candidates has a tried & true plan to make the American dollar the envy of the world (again).
I see your true colors, shining through...
The REALID act passed in 2005, a national ID card is on the way. Only Ron Paul has said he would kill it immediately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.